|
![](templates/Avalanche/images/thLeft_quote.gif) |
Tue Mar 31, 2009 9:23 pm |
![](templates/Avalanche/images/thRight.gif) |
Author |
Message |
Magflag12 Moon
Joined: 11 Jan 2008 Posts: 373
|
Post subject: |
|
|
Quick outline:
1. Apology to crabbs
2. Quick reply to 3rd criterion refute
3. Plea for further input from more people.
Sorry Crabbs, I do not want this topic to die. I see it as important, so I will refrain from discussing it further with you...
Really quick though I must say this.
Your defense on your 3rd criterion was missing the mark.
I affirmed that your 3rd criterion was accompalished with your plan, but it was non-essential, because the status quo met it already. Kreso's system is simply progressive (in regards to point distrubution), as a means to provide incentive for better game play, but so was Bill's.
Anyway, everyone reading, don't confuse my arguments with the importance of this issue. I was just making some points for people to consider. I would say that we should adopt a better point system, and overall Crabbs is better than the status quo, but if we all put our opinions in then we can come up with even a better one. _________________ If you're in a war, instead of throwing a hand grenade at the enemy, throw one of those small pumpkins. Maybe it'll make everyone think how stupid war is, and while they are thinking, you can throw a real grenade at them. |
|
|
![](templates/Avalanche/images/thLeft_quote.gif) |
Tue Mar 31, 2009 9:27 pm |
![](templates/Avalanche/images/thRight.gif) |
Author |
Message |
trace567 Guest
|
Post subject: |
|
|
MrCrabbs wrote: | You are reverting to type Trace. I have put my calculations here, and they are right. Please put yours.
Ingeras is owed 2500, sim is owed 9000.
Once more, the benefits of open discussion are demonstrated. |
Quote: | the collected pool of points was 115000points,
Ingeras wins 70k
Gameman wins 35500
Matthew gains 28000 |
Quote: | Pay Structure will be as follows:-
1st = 50% entry fee + 15k
2nd = 30% entry fee + 10k
3rd = 20% entry fee + 5k |
prize pool 115000
50% = 57500 + 15k = 72500
30% = 34500 + 10k = 35500
20% = 23000 + 5k = 28000
Better? If any player is owed points by a miscalculation they will get whats owed as soon as a second moderator confirms the calculations. Errors can happen, and thank you for drawing attention to it Crabbs. I promise whatever is owed will be resolved. |
|
|
![](templates/Avalanche/images/thLeft_quote.gif) |
Tue Mar 31, 2009 9:29 pm |
![](templates/Avalanche/images/thRight.gif) |
Author |
Message |
MrCrabbs Guest
|
Post subject: |
|
|
Magflag,
Both systems meet criteria 3) if bonuses are left out. It was your claim that mine did not meet it that I was refuting.
About bonuses as an incentive to get players to play. Explaining that 1st prize is 55%, which if we get the same number of entrants as last time is over 63,000 points, should provide that incentive - there is no need for bonuses.
Last edited by MrCrabbs on Tue Mar 31, 2009 9:32 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
![](templates/Avalanche/images/thLeft_quote.gif) |
Tue Mar 31, 2009 9:30 pm |
![](templates/Avalanche/images/thRight.gif) |
Author |
Message |
MrCrabbs Guest
|
Post subject: |
|
|
Trace,
You have accidentally only added 1000 points instead of 10,000 to sim's score. |
|
|
![](templates/Avalanche/images/thLeft_quote.gif) |
Tue Mar 31, 2009 9:35 pm |
![](templates/Avalanche/images/thRight.gif) |
Author |
Message |
trace567 Guest
|
Post subject: |
|
|
Your right crabbs, which is why i wanted a second mod to confirm my calctulations. |
|
|
![](templates/Avalanche/images/thLeft_quote.gif) |
Tue Mar 31, 2009 10:23 pm |
![](templates/Avalanche/images/thRight.gif) |
Author |
Message |
MrCrabbs Guest
|
Post subject: |
|
|
Well posting your maths made it clear what had gone wrong. A lesson for mods in general - put the information out there, because mistakes do happen, and may be noticed by another mod, or a humble pleb, I mean player.
Of course, your figures had already been confirmed by another mod, Bill, who must have made the same mistake. It is good to use the forum to make your work easier, rather than having mods do everything and then complianing you are overworked.
A useful link to see how this was debated in past: http://www.galacticmag.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1790&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=opinion&start=15. I hope you will see that a formula based on Kreso's original idea, as I have made, is preferable to ad-hoc decisions, which can have consequences the designers did not intend.
Obviously, Bill did not intend to create a a system where every player's main incentive given the points structure would be to avoid 4th, but I believe I have shown this is the major flaw with the system as it currently stands. That is independent of whether players in this final acknowledge the point - certainly acejase refutes it, but the logic still stands. |
|
|
![](templates/Avalanche/images/thLeft_quote.gif) |
Wed Apr 01, 2009 5:44 pm |
![](templates/Avalanche/images/thRight.gif) |
Author |
Message |
MrCrabbs Guest
|
Post subject: |
|
|
Back to the task in hand, and since I would like to make progress I have to again take a moment to squish some comments that are confused:
Magflag12 wrote: | Your defense on your 3rd criterion was missing the mark. I affirmed that your 3rd criterion was accompalished with your plan, but it was non-essential, because the status quo met it already. |
This is of course wrong. If Bill's had met this criteria, but mine had not, it would have been an argument in favour of Bill's formula. It was thus necessary to show that my formula met it too - ie: that my formula does what Bill's does, and more, rather than replacing old problems with new, as has happened when tourny points were changed in the past.
Magflag12 wrote: | Kreso's system is simply progressive (in regards to point distrubution), as a means to provide incentive for better game play, but so was Bill's. |
It should be clear by now that this is not the case. Bill's system means that if you are in 3rd it is not in your interests to gamble for 2nd. It means that if you are in 2nd, it is not in your interests to gamble for 1st, unless you know you cannot possibly slip to last. This is not true in a normal game of GM and it is not true in my system.
For all criteria 1-6, it is shown that the system I suggest either meets them sufficiently well (as for criteria 1, 3 and 5) or better than the status quo (as for criteria 2, 4 and 6).
Are there any other criteria that need considering, or any reasons to drop any of the criteria 1-6? |
|
|
![](templates/Avalanche/images/thLeft_quote.gif) |
Wed Apr 01, 2009 9:16 pm |
![](templates/Avalanche/images/thRight.gif) |
Author |
Message |
Magflag12 Moon
Joined: 11 Jan 2008 Posts: 373
|
Post subject: |
|
|
The difference between 20% and 30% in a 115000 point tournament is...
23000 and 34500 Which is 11500 of a difference. Any person who is competitive for points will chase after that difference (A.K.A people who join tournaments.
Your system does this.
difference between 3rd and 2nd is 15% and 30%
17250 and 34500 which is a 17250 difference, WHICH is a difference of around 5500 as far as progressiveness goes. HOWEVER, if you remove the bonus that Bill's system advocated you see that the progressiveness is around the same (given that bill's bonus were 5, 10, and 15k I believe to the winners.
The only difference, in a sense, is that 4th place gets his points back. Leaving us with the same issue as before. The only people who are going to ever jump up in a place, and risk the possibility of losing to do so, are the ones who are highly competitive in the tournament (I.E. Crabbs and I and a lot of others).
My point Crabbs, is that the significance of your ENTIRE plan is belittled when face with the fact that the change and the solvency is minimal in the grand scheme of things.
Let me propose my plan.
1st place gets 55%
2nd place gets 25%
3rd gets 10%
*The last 10% of the income is donated to magflag.
Any takers ? _________________ If you're in a war, instead of throwing a hand grenade at the enemy, throw one of those small pumpkins. Maybe it'll make everyone think how stupid war is, and while they are thinking, you can throw a real grenade at them. |
|
|
![](templates/Avalanche/images/thLeft_quote.gif) |
Wed Apr 01, 2009 11:52 pm |
![](templates/Avalanche/images/thRight.gif) |
Author |
Message |
MrCrabbs Guest
|
Post subject: |
|
|
Deary me Magflag.
The difference between what 2nd and 3rd get in my system is 5% greater than in Bill's, which for 115,000 points is 5750 difference. There is no "however". The however is in your head.
I have run through the maths for you. I have proven that the dominant strategy in Bill's system is "avoid 4th", and that that is not the case in mine. The same is true if you take Bill's system and add a 4th place fee refund. The loss of going from 3rd to last is still greater than the gain from climbing from 3rd to 2nd, and hence it is still irrational to take a 50/50 gamble to try to do so.
The bonuses are irrelevant. I beg you, read through all of this and see how infuriating it is of you to keep mentioning bonuses, which are a ONE OFF AND IRRELEVANT, and how insane of you it is to KEEP IGNORING THE MATHS and claiming that Bill's system provides an incentive to try to climb a place, which as I have shown at great length it does not.
I repeat,
For all criteria 1-6, it is shown that the system I suggest either meets them sufficiently well (as for criteria 1, 3 and 5) or better than the status quo (as for criteria 2, 4 and 6).
Are there any other criteria that need considering, or any reasons to drop any of the criteria 1-6?
To which I add,
Or, are there any other systems we can imagine that meet these 6 criteria better? |
|
|
![](templates/Avalanche/images/thLeft_quote.gif) |
Thu Apr 02, 2009 11:04 pm |
![](templates/Avalanche/images/thRight.gif) |
Author |
Message |
MrCrabbs Guest
|
Post subject: |
|
|
Right, I think there is a need to add 4 more criteria:
7. The system should attract players to tournaments.
8. Players who have played in a tournament should want to come back
Note: 7 and 8 together mean that the number of players in the tournament grows rather than fluctuating as it has done in the past.
9. Payoffs in the tournament should not cause resentment among players who don't play in tournaments, by being too generous or distortionary.
10. The points should be likely to "feed back" into the points system, rather than being "locked away", either by the player not using that account any more, or by that player losing their points in a game to players who only plays other high-points players.
11. Players who do not play in the tournaments should not be unfairly disadvantaged. This is very important since we have thousands of players and rarely more than 20 whoplay in a tournament.
12. The tournaments should not have the effect of distorting Kreso's points system too much, eg: it should not be possible to win 10 normal games, but get fewer points than if you won just 3 games in a tournament.
Last edited by MrCrabbs on Sun Apr 05, 2009 7:25 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
|
![](templates/Avalanche/images/thLeft_quote.gif) |
Sun Apr 05, 2009 7:18 pm |
![](templates/Avalanche/images/thRight.gif) |
Author |
Message |
MrCrabbs Guest
|
Post subject: |
|
|
I have come to believe that both the system I propose here, and the status quo, totally fail criteria 9-12.
I refer players to http://www.galacticmag.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=33804#33804 for a discussion of why they fail, and how this threatens GM's success and popularity, by distorting the points system.
A less mathsy, more wordy analysis, and an urgent call to solve this problem, is in my post here: http://www.galacticmag.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=33919#33919. That post calls for the abolition of all tournaments, unless we can run them in a way that doesn't destroy the value of points gained in normal rated games. |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|